AC 2012-3569: MICROETHICS AND MACROETHICS IN GRADUATE EDUCATION FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS: DEVELOPING AND ASSESSING INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS
AC 2012-3569: MICROETHICS AND MACROETHICS IN GRADUATE EDUCATION FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS: DEVELOPING AND ASSESSING INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS
复制标题
AC 2012-3569：科学家和工程师研究生教育中的微观伦理学和宏观伦理学：开发和评估教学模型
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
--
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Heather E. Canary
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Heather E. Canary
[1]虽然政府和公众希望大学对学生进行研究伦理教育，但那些向科学和工程研究生教授伦理的人仍然在努力寻找最有效的模式，以确保他们的学生内化专业价值观，并使其成为科学和技术实践的一部分。(1)本文将报告一个为期四年的研究项目，开发和评估四种不同的教学模式，介绍和教育科学和工程研究生的微观和宏观的伦理问题，在他们的工作。在工程师和科学家的研究生教育中整合微观和宏观伦理学的努力很少。为了使这些努力有效，需要结合来自科学技术研究和应用伦理学等领域的跨学科概念和方法。该项目包括的四种模式是：1）关于科学和工程的社会影响的独立课程; 2）嵌入在必修科学课程中的微观和宏观伦理材料; 3）关于负责任的研究行为的混合在线/面对面课程;以及4）在实验室中从事伦理学。在本文中，我们讨论了课程模式的发展和评估结果的学生的相关标准的知识，道德敏感性，道德推理，以及学生与教师的沟通。
1 While the government and the public look to universities to educate students in research ethics, those who teach ethics to science and engineering graduate students still struggle to find the most effective models for ensuring that their students internalize professional values and make them part of their scientific and technical practices. (1) This paper will report on a four year research project to develop and assess four different instructional models that introduce and educate science and engineering graduate students to the microand macroethical issues in their work. Efforts at integrating microand macroethics in graduate education of engineers and scientists have been few. To be effective such efforts require incorporation of interdisciplinary concepts and methods drawn from such fields as science and technology studies and applied ethics. The four models included in the project are: 1) a standalone course on societal implications of science and engineering; 2) microand macroethics material embedded in a required science course; 3) a hybrid online/face-to-face course on responsible conduct of research; and 4) engaging ethics in the lab. In the paper we discuss development of the course models and assessment results of students’ knowledge of relevant standards, ethical sensitivity, and ethical reasoning, as well as student-instructor communication.